[LINK] Local ISPs confront content regulation codes

[Irene Graham]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 22:54:48 +1100 (EST) Howard Lowndes <lannet@lannet.com.au>
wrote:

>Two points.
>
>Why does 10% of the ISP industry think that it can dictate the business
>pratices of the other 90%.

Have I missed something? Where is there any indication at all that IIA is, or is
trying to, via its proposed revised code, "dictate" to 90% of the ISP industry,
or to anyone else? 

Compliance with the IIA Code is entirely voluntary unless the ABA orders an ISP
to comply with that Code. To my knowledge the ABA has not issued such an order
in the last 2 years (or ever). Does anyone know differently? Has there ever been
the slightest indication the ABA is ever likely to? 

Moreover, no Internet user is under any obligation whatsoever to purchase or use
filtering software from an IIA Code compliant ISP or from anyone else.

AFAICS the IIA revised code (relative to provision of filtering/blocking
software) merely aims to get IIA members to agree to provide filtering/blocking
software at a cost plus reasonable overheads price, as distinct from a cost plus
profit price. If IIA considers such an amendment to their code will assist in
getting it re-registered by the ABA, which they apparently do, what's the harm?
Again, Code compliance is *voluntary*, as is membership of IIA.

In my personal opinion, this is a good proposal on IIA's part. The cheaper and
easier it is for persons who wish to avail themselves of the use of filtering
software to do so, the less likely it is that the Commonwealth government in its
dubious wisdom will want/decide to enforce the BSA in manner more restrictive of
adults' freedom to access what they wish to view on the Net. (There are issues
relative to whether a filter provided by a particular ISP from the IIA scheduled
filters is effective, the best, or appropriate for a particular user's needs,
etc, but that's an entirely separate issue: no-one's being forced to buy or use
any of them).

For the information of people who have forgotten, or never knew, the BSA is to
be reviewed by 1 Jan 2003. How it operates at present is a result, to a fairly
large extent, of the Gov. considering that the existence of provisions of the
IIA Code is sufficient to make it unnecessary to enforce the law in another way,
which would e.g. involve ISPs blocking access to overseas hosted sites at the
server level.

Given compliance with the IIA Code is not mandatory, and Internet users are free
to purchase filtering/blocking software from anywhere they wish, if they wish, I
find it extremely doubtful the Code infringes the TPA. I'd suggest that people
inclined to criticise this aspect of the IIA Code may be well advised to take a
closer look at the TPA and also a political reality check.

Irene